New Jersey Tea Parties formally bail on Mitt Romney

Most people should have seen this coming:

A Statement from Tea Party Groups of New Jersey:

Monmouth County Tea Party Coalition

Ocean County Citizens For Freedom

Bayshore Tea Party Group

Tea Party of Middlesex County

No longer will we be forced by both political parties and the media to choose between the lesser of two evils. We say, not on our watch will we ever give in to this sort of tyranny again. This game ends right here, right now! Endorsing Mitt Romney and his record of left-leaning policies would be a complete hypocrisy that collides with everything the Tea Party Movement stands for.

So, it is with great pleasure and honor that We of the above mentioned Tea Party Groups of New Jersey, announce our full endorsement of Dr. Ron Paul for President of The United States of America 2012. Dr. Paul's 20+ year voting record as an ardent constitutional conservative speaks profoundly of his integrity both as a representative of the people and as a human being. Dr. Paul's message of Limited Constitutional Government and Individual Liberty is what motivated the Tea Parties into action to begin with and this message will continue to resonate within our movement until America is restored to her former glory and is once again a beacon of freedom.

We choose to stand by our principles rather than to sell our souls to the game of politics because this is what Ron Paul has done consistently his entire political life and we expect nothing less of ourselves.

The stories about sweeping up delegates at state caucuses was only going to play in the headlines for the Ron Paul campaign for so long, and it is still months to the GOP Convention.

Paul's organization is too savvy to allow there to be that kind of a gap, otherwise the Congressman is old news in Tampa.

Please stop the bleeding, Mitt pleads.

Look for more grassroots declarations of lack of support for Romney.

As I've already noted, this will be a particularly useful strategy in states Mitt couldn't win in the first place--like Delaware.

Comments

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog